AstroWay Relationships

by info.astroway

Overview Discussions Admin

Coalescent Chart

astroway_relational_coalescent

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate a coalescent chart: the harmonic chart that resonates most strongly between two charts.

[Group: Comparisons] [Cost: 50 credits (Tier 3)]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fields`	No	Compact mode: comma-separated dotted paths to keep, relative to `data`, e.g. "planets.name,planets.longitude,houses.cusp". Omit for the whole response.
`input1`	Yes	Birth data for a single natal chart. Required: date (YYYY-MM-DD), time (HH:mm:ss), latitude and longitude in decimal degrees. The short forms lat, lon, lng and tz are rejected with 400 INVALID_FIELD; pass the full names. timezoneOffset is hours from UTC and defaults to 0, meaning UTC; send timezone instead (an IANA name such as Europe/Kyiv, or auto) and the offset for that date is worked out, summer time included. city is a display label only: nothing here geocodes it, so it never stands in for coordinates. houseSystem is a single Swiss Ephemeris letter, P by default; a name such as "Placidus" is refused, and the case matters because I and i are two different Sunshine systems.
`input2`	Yes	Birth data for a single natal chart. Required: date (YYYY-MM-DD), time (HH:mm:ss), latitude and longitude in decimal degrees. The short forms lat, lon, lng and tz are rejected with 400 INVALID_FIELD; pass the full names. timezoneOffset is hours from UTC and defaults to 0, meaning UTC; send timezone instead (an IANA name such as Europe/Kyiv, or auto) and the offset for that date is worked out, summer time included. city is a display label only: nothing here geocodes it, so it never stands in for coordinates. houseSystem is a single Swiss Ephemeris letter, P by default; a name such as "Placidus" is refused, and the case matters because I and i are two different Sunshine systems.
`precision`	No	Compact mode: round fractional numbers to this many decimals. Longitudes carry 14 by default; 2 is finer than any chart is drawn.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`meta`	No
`input`	No
`houses`	No
`aspects`	No
`planets`	No
`antiscia`	No
`chartSect`	No
`julianDay`	No
`houseAspects`	No
`siderealTime`	No
`antisciaAspects`	No
`parallelAspects`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: it is a Tier 3 operation costing 50 credits and belongs to the Comparisons group, which matters for cost-aware planning.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences plus bracketed metadata, front-loaded with the verb and the definition. Nothing is padded, though the bracket tags are mechanical rather than explanatory.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists and the input schema is exhaustive, so return values and parameters are covered. What is missing is the one thing only the description can supply: disambiguation from the large family of two-chart relational siblings, which leaves the agent guessing at selection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the nested input1/input2 objects carry very detailed field docs (timezone, ayanamsa, houseSystem letters, rejected short forms), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about fields, precision, or the compact-mode behavior, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Calculate a coalescent chart') and defines the term as 'the harmonic chart that resonates most strongly between two charts', which conceptually separates it from midpoint-style composite or davison tools. However, it never names the sibling relational tools (relational_composite, relational_davison, relational_synastry, relational_match_score) an agent must choose between.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named, despite roughly seven sibling relational tools that all take two charts. The phrase 'between two charts' implies the context but leaves the agent to infer when a coalescent chart is preferable to a composite, davison, or synastry result.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All AstroWay Relationships tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?